Compare in-situ slum redevelopment with relocation. What lessons do the Mumbai and Delhi experiences offer?
New · District CollectorCan you hold the district for 72 hours?Floods, a heatwave, an outbreak, a grievance queue. Take the decisions, see the consequences.Play →In-situ redevelopment rehouses slum dwellers on the land they already live on and treats that land as a resource [1]. Relocation moves them to new sites, often at the city's edge. Delhi has finalised a 2026 policy with a cut-off of 1 January 2025, which covers about 4 lakh families [2]. That makes the choice between the two models urgent, and the evidence favours in-situ first.
In-situ vs Relocation
| Parameter | In-situ | Relocation |
|---|---|---|
| Livelihood | Keeps jobs, schools and care networks close | Distant sites cut people off from their work. Olga Tellis tied shelter to livelihood under Article 21 [3] |
| Finance | Extra FSI/TDR and commercial sale pay for the free flats [1] | The state pays for both land and construction |
| Feasibility | Depends on land value and a safe site [1] | Sometimes the only option for unsafe or reserved land |
| Social cost | Low disruption | Hits women and informal workers hardest |
Lessons from Mumbai
- The builder-funded model works only where land is costly: MoHUA itself judges a project's viability by market potential and the FSI available [1]. Developers stay away where land is cheap, and projects stall.
- Fix the beneficiary list first: in the airport-land scheme, the CAG found delays in certifying which slum dwellers were eligible [4]. A disputed list can stall finished flats as badly as a lack of money.
Lessons from Delhi
- Funding gap: Kalkaji, DDA's first in-situ project, cost about ₹345 crore for 3,024 flats [5]. That is roughly ₹11 lakh per flat, against a central ISSR grant of about ₹1 lakh per house [6]. The state has to pay most of the cost.
- A built flat is not a rehoused family: nationally, only 37% of sanctioned ISSR houses were complete by December 2024, and only about 30% of those were occupied. The Standing Committee blamed incomplete infrastructure among other reasons [7].
- Fragmented responsibility: DDA takes up clusters from DUSIB's notified list [8], so no single agency is clearly answerable for delays. The cut-off date has also changed many times, which adds uncertainty.
In short, in-situ redevelopment protects livelihoods, while relocation mainly protects the city's land plans. But in-situ projects fail when they depend on builder profit, disputed beneficiary lists and missing services. Delhi's notified policy should set an enforceable "in-situ first, relocation last" rule. It should also require one beneficiary register per cluster, one accountable agency, and no demolition until a serviced home is ready. Rental housing should cover those the cut-off still leaves out. This would meet Article 21 and SDG 11: rehabilitation that restores an urban life, not just a flat.
Sources
- 1MoHUA, "In-situ" Slum Redevelopment (ISSR) using Land as Resource leaflet.pdf) — land as a resource; FSI/TDR cross-subsidy; viability judged by market potential and site
- 2PIB, Union Home Minister chairs review meeting on rehabilitation of slums in New Delhi (June 2026)2026 policy finalised; cut-off 01.01.2025; about 4 lakh families
- 3Supreme Court of India, *Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation* (1985)right to livelihood and shelter under Article 21
- 4CAG, Audit Report (Civil), Government of Maharashtra 2011, Chapter 2delayed certification of eligible slum dwellers in the Mumbai airport-land scheme
- 5PMO India, PM inaugurates 3,024 newly constructed flats at Kalkaji under In-Situ Slum Rehabilitation Project3,024 flats; about ₹345 crore; built by DDA
- 6PMAY-Urban, ISSR verticalcentral grant of about ₹1 lakh per house
- 7PRS Legislative Research, Demand for Grants 2026-27 Analysis: Housing and Urban AffairsISSR completion and occupancy rates; Standing Committee findings
- 8DDA, In-situ Rehabilitation Policy under PMAY (2021)DDA takes up viable clusters from DUSIB's list